By Robert A. Loeb
The Blago nightmare is almost over. The federal jury returned a verdict of guilty on 17 of 20 counts against the former governor. Regardless of one’s personal opinion of his criminal culpability, and for that matter, regardless of the jury’s verdict -- he’s been a national embarrassment.
Let’s not rehash the coverage in the news media here. We’ve already been inundated with that, and it was three whole news cycles ago. And even though he invoked Elvis once again as he waited for the verdict (“my hands are shaking and my knees are weak”), I’ll try hard to refrain from further cheap Elvis references at his expense. Even though other song titles from Elvis include “That’s what you get for lovin’me,” “Jailhouse Rock,” and “Please release me.” Rather, let’s take a look at the case and the verdict from a lawyer’s perspective.
The media is asking, “how was the second trial different from the first, and did that difference help produce a different result?” I’m not so sure they were very different. Sure, the difference between a hung jury and a conviction is great, but is the difference between an 11-1 vote and and a 12-0 vote so significant when evaluating trial tactics? It has been reported that the government streamlined the case against Blagojevich, eliminating some counts and some evidence in an attempt to make the case clearer to the jury. Both juries seem to have been thorough and meticulous, but it still took this jury two weeks to deliberate, and an indictment with 20 remaining counts is not exactly simplified. I’m suggesting that the government did not really need to alter its case after the first trial.
From the defense point of view, the fact that different lawyers represented Blagojevich in the second trial may have lessened the entertainment value, but the cross-examinations of witnesses parroted the successful moments from the first trial.
Practice News
-
June 30, 2011 |
Practice News
-
June 29, 2011 |
ISBA News | Practice News
John Locallo wants the ISBA to help lawyers use technology to do what they do best: counsel clients and practice law. "There's so much new stuff out there, and lawyers are aware of it but aren't sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing." Find out what he has in mind, and read about important new Illinois Supreme Court cases, Illinois' new official case-citation scheme, and much more in the July Illinois Bar Journal.
-
June 29, 2011 |
Practice News
I had a doctor's appointment this morning and brought along an old friend for companionship, Plain English for Lawyers (5th ed. 2005) by Richard C. Wydick. It's about 104 pages of advice that is as helpful today as the first time I read it. I would analogize it as the Strunk and White for lawyers. It's now on my list to re-read once a year. I had forgotten how good this book was.
-
June 29, 2011 |
Practice News
By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. In a recent firm meeting the question was raised as to whether law firms hit a wall when they run up against new competitors, new technologies, new business models, or when their talent peaks. Is there a general model of sustaining a law firm? A. The mechanics of managing a law firm are too complex to address in this forum. It would be better to discuss what to tell you what to look for that tells you, well in advance of a fee revenue plateau, that your practice needs some work. Once you know where your practice is getting wobbly, then you will have a clearer idea of how to fix the mechanics. We tell our clients that often a law firm is on an "S-Curve" in which slow and steady growth often occurs at the start of the law practice, followed by gaining momentum and rapid growth, then tapering off as practice areas get saturated or competitors enter the practice areas in which the firm is engaged. Watch these components for advance warning: 1. Competition - any practice area attractive to you will also attract other law firms, so monitor new entrants starting to chip away at your clients. 2. Capabilities - you created or bought some new technology, skills or other assets to start your firm/growth, but the distinctiveness of these eventually wears off and they are likely to be available to competitors once their value is clear. 3. Talent - you had it when you started your firm, but attorneys and staff have become "free agents" and increasingly move between law firms more frequently and you may lose a key asset. There may be other components unique to your practice and market.
-
June 28, 2011 |
Practice News
The Cook County Law Library will be closing at 6 p.m. on weekdays starting July 6 and continuing through Sept. 23. Pursuant to Chicago Municipal Code 13-196-205, the Public Building Commission is installing an automatic sprinkler system in the Daley Center.
-
June 24, 2011 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court has approved the appointment of Regina Ann Scannicchio as a Circuit Judge of Cook County, Fourteenth Subcircuit. This appointment fills the vacancy created by the retirement of the Hon. Lawrence O'Gara. It is effective July 5 and terminates on Dec. 3, 2012.
-
June 23, 2011 |
Practice News
[caption id="attachment_20566" align="alignright" width="300" caption="The MacBook Air comes with either an 11" or 13" display."][/caption] By Peter LaSorsa So you are in the market for a new laptop. I won’t devote much space in this article on whether to purchase a Windows-based laptop or Mac because the Mac is superior—end of discussion. Mac’s have better technology, are pretty much virus free and are the leaders in innovation.
-
June 22, 2011 |
Practice News
The latest issue of ISBA's Senior Lawyers newsletter is available now, with articles by Leonard Amari on what ISBA has to offer senior lawyers, John Maville on how to ease into retirement, Farmer John Damisch on why you shouldn't retire, Gary Rafool on how retired lawyers can avoid bankruptcy and protect their assets, and more. Read it now.
-
June 22, 2011 |
Practice News
Asked and Answered By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. Our firm used to have weekly firm meetings to discuss management and operational issues. We discontinued them due to the excessive time being spent and questionable results and value. Now we are finding that we are totally unfocused and having problems with poor accountability and things falling through the cracks. We are now considering starting up weekly meetings again but want to insure that we do a better job of managing meetings than we did in the past. What are your thoughts? A. Before scheduling a meeting consider the purpose of the meeting. In general there are the following four types of meetings: 1. Strategy Meetings are rich group discussions involving strategy and planning sessions, brainstorming, group budgeting, marketing, or financial planning. These meetings are effective when everyone understands the purpose and the ground rules. 2. Reporting Meetings consist of one person informing the others in the room and sharing of information. These meetings are valuable only if the news is meaningful to most of the attendees. There may be Q&A and discussion, and different people may report out during the same meeting. These meetings should be structured. 3. Status Meetings are often low in value and you should keep them sort. Attorneys and other team members need to share information and brief sessions are effective at keeping the team on the same page. Consider stand-up meetings - where literally, everyone is standing. It keeps the meetings short. Require agendas. 4. Dilemma or Issue Meetings where just a few of the participants engage in detailed problem solving, are inefficient. Don't drag the whole group into dilemma or issue meetings. If your meeting is headed this direction deflect it for one-on-one time. Meetings work best when they have:
-
June 16, 2011 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorney's review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court in civil opinions Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison, Snyder v. Heidelberger, Genius v. County of Cook and criminal opinions People v. Ward, People v. White and People v. Hawkins.
CIVIL
Studt v. Sherman Health Systems